Angry like a Fox

The whole Michelle Obama, angry black woman™ narrative seemed to pop out of nowhere as soon as the Jodi Kantor book "The Obamas" came to light. Kantor was recently interviewed on CNN and was shocked, shocked that her book could have possibly triggered such a reaction!



Kantor says her writings were based on what Michelle's 'closest aides' told her. She defends what she calls a 'turnaround' in Michelle Obama's attitude about being First Lady (amidst interruptions from O'Brien) between 2009 and 2010. She also points out that the 'FLOTUS' had not read the book when she made the angry black woman comments. So it seems the entire brouhaha was manufactured by someone opining on a book they hadn't read, based on a narrative that really has never existed in any widespread form other than reaction to campaign comments about "being proud" of her country, etc.

Perhaps the more instructive part of this clip is how O'Brien defends the administration, even against otherwise 'friendly' sources--in this case a New York Times reporter getting fed information by White House aides for an overall flattering book on the Obamas.   The last in-depth flattering portrait of the marriage based on close friends came from Christopher Andersen, whose book also contained a few minor unflattering details, details which caused the White House to defer comment and most major media to ignore it in their book review sections, with the requisite outrage from Media Matters. In that case Howie Kurtz of CNN was one of the few to ask Andersen about some of those details (that the White House had no comment on):



In both cases the books came from friendly writers based on friendly sources. And in both cases the more controversial events were not completely refuted.  It's hard to tell whether these manuscripts are really just clever ways of getting out uncomfortable information for the benefit of crisis management at some later date or just sensationalistic renditions of mundane events for the benefit of selling books.  

MORE  1/14/12

If the Kurtz video above is restricted, here's another version.   As to the Ayers section, when pushed on who told Andersen that Ayers was involved in the book he replied, "NEITHER ONE OF THEM denied it". The deal here is that Ayers has been asked and (whether jesting or not) has confirmed it; the president has not been asked.     

Baring Arms

We're talking Michelle Obama's arms, not weapons. They seem to be making some big splash, as if no first lady has ever possessed them before.

Now, I freely bash her husband on here all the time. And I didn't care much for the "for the first time I'm proud" unpatriotic crud, but c'mon, there's nothing wrong with her arms. They are fine arms, and appear perfectly capable of wrestling the POTUS into submission if necessary.

But the best thing about her bare arms is the message--to the enemy. They cannot stand bare arms:

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.

It's almost as bad as music to the hardcores. So on this Mother's Day may God bless Michelle Obama and her arms, and may he damn those offended by them.

Michellorama

She's not a gifted public speaker, but she got her points across.. faith, family, God, loves America, average woman, not a shrill monster. As Juan Williams said on Fox, it was also an historic moment from the perspective of minorities in this country, something not possible in any other country but America. And she touched on that.

But she avoided the proud comment. Saying she loves America really doesn't do it--she could love the country but still not be proud of it until Barack started bringing out the voters.

As to Obama, what's he doing in St. Loi, Kansas City hanging out with some family and not at the convention? A Secret Service thing, perhaps?

Keeping it all straight

It all started with Larry, the man once trained in subterfuge and psyops. Everyone on the web knows this. But Barack Obama's new fight the smears site isn't intended for net savvy customers.

For example, this power to truth site claims a Republican operative named Roger Stone is a "well-known sleazemeister". How can someone be a well-known anything when they're not very well known? And is he now a sleazemeister because the site said so?

In making his point Obama posted a You Tube of the guy talking about the whitey rumor on June 1 yet ignored a tape from known Democrat strategist Bob Beckel from June 3, which threw gas on the Whitey tape fire several days after Stone's utterances. Heck, he could have also pointed to a host of lefty bloggers who favored Hillary, like this one. But he didn't.

Today Allahpundit pointed to yet another MSM story blaming conservatives for the whole flap, this time from ABC News. Actually the Village Voice had the narrative down a few weeks ago, shown in this May 27 post blaming the right. Like Obama they mentioned Johnson but spared him the scorn. It's true the MSM doesn't need a website to help them bury important facts from a story but it can't hurt. It's also official, not just some idiot blogger.

Well, none of this should be shocking, unless SOP is shocking. Who could forget the traction Hillary got with her "vast right wing conspiracy" BS during Bill's trouble? And she almost got away with the vastly idiotic "if I knew then what I know now" explanation for her Iraq war vote, one of the silliest ever, that is until Barack came along and removed the press's reason for incuriosity.

But hey, beauty is truth, truth beauty-- who's going to watch the watcher, Snopes? Ah heck, who needs 'em?! All we know is that right wing bloggers or talk show hosts can't be trusted to debunk anything anymore--all they do is pass along smears.

UPDATE 6/15/08

Beckel just boarded the train. His initial video is posted above. You decide.